304 N.W.2d 811 (Mich.App. 1981), 48866, People v. Soltis

Docket Nº:Docket No. 48866.
Citation:304 N.W.2d 811, 104 Mich.App. 53
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard SOLTIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Thomas P. [104 Mich.App. 54] Rabette, Bloomfield Hills, for defendant-appellant. Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Philip J. Crowley, Pros. Atty., Mary C. Smith, Pros. Attys. Appellate Service, for plaintiff-appellee.
Judge Panel:Before DANHOF, C. J., and KELLY and SULLIVAN, [*] JJ.
Case Date:January 28, 1981
Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Page 811

304 N.W.2d 811 (Mich.App. 1981)

104 Mich.App. 53

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Bernard SOLTIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 48866.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

January 28, 1981

Released for Publication April 30, 1981.

Thomas P. [104 Mich.App. 54] Rabette, Bloomfield Hills, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Philip J. Crowley, Pros. Atty., Mary C. Smith, Pros. Attys. Appellate Service, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, C. J., and KELLY and SULLIVAN, [*] JJ.

Page 812

PER CURIAM.

On September 2, 1978, the defendant, Bernard Soltis, Jr., and William E. Wilson, were charged with possession with intent to deliver phencyclidine in violation of M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(b); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(b). Codefendant Wilson entered a plea. Defendant Soltis went to trial in Kalkaska County Circuit Court and was convicted of the crime charged on October 12, 1979. On December 10, 1979, defendant was sentenced to a term of from three to seven years in prison and appeals of right.

Defendant contends in his first two specifications [104 Mich.App. 55] of error that the trial court erred in finding that he did not have standing to raise the defense of entrapment and in its concluding that, alternatively, even if defendant did have standing he was not in fact entrapped. We find that the trial court did not err in finding that the informant's activities were directed only to the codefendant and that they were not within the knowledge of defendant Soltis whose furnishing for sale the controlled substance in this matter appears to have been solely the conducting of an illegal enterprise for profit.

We find that the trial court committed no error in imposing defendant's sentence which was within the proper minimum and maximum limits for the crime charged.

The defendant next argues that an adequate foundation for the reliability of the spectrophotometer test results was not established. In applying the rules announced in People v. Krulikowski, 60 Mich.App. 28, 230 N.W.2d 290 (1975), we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the machine's reliability had been adequately established.

Finally, defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a Walker 1 hearing. Although a Walker hearing contemplates a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP